As I noted before. AV delegated locker room leadership to a core group of players. Torts is the locker room leader. Hank also earlier noted that he appreciated more clearly defined roles. I am not surprised by Friendman's comments.

I think MG summed it up bests the team goes to game 7 of the SCF. the next year the team wins the President's Trophy again but gets bounced round one. But the season was chalked up to the SC hang over. Then you have the shortened season and more is expected. They win the Division but have a lacklustre year, and get easily bounced round one. Then action was taken.

Point is, year after the cup run you give the benefit of the doubt,especially since the team has been a contender for a few years. Had they blown the Chicago series that year and lost game seven I think AV would have been gone then, but you don't fire the coach after a near perfect year where you came within one game of winning it all.

It was more than clear half way into the shortened season AV had lost the room. The early playoff exit made the decision easy. They also knew if the Rangers did anything but get to the Finals Torts was gone and he was the guy they targeted. Not revisionist history either.

BUT - when the Nucks won the presidents trophy we need to realize it was based upon playing some real crappy divisional teams. The points were hiding the warts which always came to light when the games went to the next level.

Reefer2 wrote:BUT - when the Nucks won the presidents trophy we need to realize it was based upon playing some real crappy divisional teams. The points were hiding the warts which always came to light when the games went to the next level.

Not diminishing the fact they did win the presidents trophy.

Sorry Reefer, but you are infact, greatly diminishing the fact that we won back-to-back Presidents' trophies.

That 2010/2011 Canucks team was head over heels better than every single team that year and was one of the greatest hockey teams ever assembled. It's not farfetched to say that if the Canucks really wanted to, we could have had close to 130 points that year (i.e. in a few games, the Canucks deliberately 'tanked' as to save/conserve energy for the playoffs).

Even in 2011/2012..........while it's true that the Canucks did take advantage of the weak division (and probably wouldn't have won the PT that season had they been in a tougher divison), we still would have been a Top 5 team. No one ever complained about Detroit racking up a few Presidents' trophies in embarrassingly weak Central Divisions. Also - in facing the Kings in the first round, we were without Daniel Sedin for the first 3 games. With the exception of Game 2 in that series, each and every game was a coin flip.

Losing to a team that then destroyed every other team en route to a cup victory (give or take, Games 5 and 6 they played against the Devils in the finals because they completely relaxed) in no friggin way exposes our "warts."

Canucks were a great team that year but simply lost to an even greater team that was absolutely sizzling.

The only 'bad' year we've had in recent years was last year.............and even then, despite all of our injuries and off-ice drama, finished 7th overall in the league. We lost 4-0 to the Sharks but that series could have just as easily been 2-2.

Reefer2 wrote:BUT - when the Nucks won the presidents trophy we need to realize it was based upon playing some real crappy divisional teams. The points were hiding the warts which always came to light when the games went to the next level.

Not diminishing the fact they did win the presidents trophy.

Further to what TBK stated...here are some other tidbits from 2010/11 and 2011/12

2010/11Canucks finish with 117 points and an 18-4-2 record against the NW good for 38 divisional points- The Wild picked up 33 (-5) divisional points, but ended up with 86 points overall (-31)- The Flyers picked up 37 (-1) divisional points, but ended up with 106 points overall (-11)

2011/12Canucks finish with 111 points and an 18-5-1 record against the NW good for 37 divisional points- The Flames picked up 33 (-4) divisional points, but ended up with 90 points overall (-21)- The Bruins picked up 39 (+1) divisional points, but ended up with 102 points overall (-9)- The Blackhawks picked up 34 (-3) divisional points, but ended up with 101 points overall (-10)

So, sure the team racked up a lot of points within their division, but so did other teams. The point is that those teams didn't pick up as much points against teams outside of their division as the Canucks did. There were other teams with basically very similar records to the Canucks within the NW, but outside of the division they were not even close.

Reefer2 wrote:BUT - when the Nucks won the presidents trophy we need to realize it was based upon playing some real crappy divisional teams. The points were hiding the warts which always came to light when the games went to the next level.

Not diminishing the fact they did win the presidents trophy.

Further to what TBK stated...here are some other tidbits from 2010/11 and 2011/12

2010/11Canucks finish with 117 points and an 18-4-2 record against the NW good for 38 divisional points- The Wild picked up 33 (-5) divisional points, but ended up with 86 points overall (-31)- The Flyers picked up 37 (-1) divisional points, but ended up with 106 points overall (-11)

2011/12Canucks finish with 111 points and an 18-5-1 record against the NW good for 37 divisional points- The Flames picked up 33 (-4) divisional points, but ended up with 90 points overall (-21)- The Bruins picked up 39 (+1) divisional points, but ended up with 102 points overall (-9)- The Blackhawks picked up 34 (-3) divisional points, but ended up with 101 points overall (-10)

So, sure the team racked up a lot of points within their division, but so did other teams. The point is that those teams didn't pick up as much points against teams outside of their division as the Canucks did. There were other teams with basically very similar records to the Canucks within the NW, but outside of the division they were not even close.

Vic comes in and ...

Just face it Reef the Canucks had great chemistry and health in the lineup in those president trophy seasons, only prob imo was Ryan Kesler was the only uber 2nd line player with him carrying Ray/Sammy etc along for the ride.That Torres - Malhotra - Hansen line was probably our best third line in Canuck history.Edler - Ehrhoff helped ignite a fluid offensive from the back, with Salo being the stabilizing factor.

The two playoffs after the cup though we lost 2/3rds of that awesome 3rd line for which was never replicated, Daniel and Kesler got injured and are now just getting back into form finally in the 2013/14 season.

And our defense is forming nicely into a good cohesive group once again.